Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

Just to clarify, are your parents dogmatic or was their school dogmatic? Also, do you include evolution with religion or do you mean religions other than Catholicism? Well and good, keep at it. I've always felt that if religious teachings were taught in public school that it should be through comparative religion, where each are presented, to help in accepting culture and ancient literature and alternate beliefs. Indeed no one has all the answers. Even science does not have all the answers, but the answers it has have been tested against reality to improve their ability to understand it and predict its behavior.Enjoy

Ye parents r full on.
ToE was taught in science. The main western and eastern religions wer taught in Religion class just as u describe it I'd say it was rational and healthy. Not too sure about public schools and religion but that's another conversation

"By definition it cannot work with supernatural processes"
I'm not sure which definition u mean.
Science definition doesn't give us the liberty of dismissing God.
Neither does the definition of agnostic
For me I'm not trying to win an argument or convert anyone. I don't feel the need to produce evidence to anybody but myself. I just need to convince myself. The methods and procedures we apply in the engineering subjects use a different method to Biology which is stricter. We cannot afford to go down any path without certain evidence witch is always confirmed mathematically. So it will always be harder for me to accept the levels of evidence biology does.
Example OK the reptile that is morphing onto a bird Annterixp or something right.
Its fair to say it is evidence supporting evolution through different species.
However it has to also be said that there is a greater chance it is just from an extinct species. I feel ToE is a solid theory in its late stages. But it's looses it's track at the dawn of primates and gets much weaker before the dinosaursDiest. That's new to me so excuse me pls.
OK so u allow the possibility of a creation, God or otherwise at the conception of time and space. But don't believe their was any further intervention in wer ToE did its job.
If my interpretation is correct then I understand it. So NO Jesus ye fair position I'd say.
Though I haven't thought about it deeply enough yet my first thought... actually is dismissed my my second... lol... I'll think about thatBut... My mind has been in this rabbit hole for 6 weeks. Was never really interested in politics and social issues. But wen I take a position I find important I really probe it from every angle. I read, think, listen, think, watch, think from every angle right or left. I can never reach a 100% conclusion to the issues I want to find truth in like religion and ToE. I'm always left with my most probable hypothesis. LoL. My standards of proof hold me back from forming more definitive conclusions but I accept that.
The feminists, lesbians, trannies are radical left man. Trump is right. I won't use Demo or Reb because Aussie politics don't have them answer so is easy to confuse. But those fat bitches u see on TV screaming and shaking the earth with feminine rage. It's left wing weather it's America, UK or here. Right is "conservative" which is a term that applies here and there I think. Anyway I'm sure wer talking about the same group. There's only one radical group... Never thought I'd uncover as much as I have so far and I keep finding shocking stuff. I'm still a long way from conclusion but what I'm finding is fascinating and has really negative effects on humanity. I better stop before I write another book here... The people im listening to are like psychologists and social studies professors from subjects I considered to be boring 3 months ago. The search for knowledge is far from easy but it is truly empowering if u never reach that definitive truth. All my positions none of them are fixed and can change with new knowleage I may find.
Hehehe u can't talk about this kind of stuff in a paragraph.
I'll see a 3 hour lecture and think wwooa that's long. But I before I know it wer done if it's provoking thought 3 hours will fly by
Anyways cheers Edited by Porkncheese, : No reason given.Edited by Porkncheese, : No reason given.

I just thought about Diest a bit more a read its very convoluted definition again.If my earlier interpretation is correct I kind of like where it sits.
Because I "feel" I don't like that word too much but I'm forming the most probable hypothesis not definitive truth so it OK.I was thinking since I jumped on here that there is some truth in both. With religion perhaps just the 1st fundamental belief of a creator. With evolution the human evolved from other primates is likely. Or evolution within animal types. Micro macro I get em mixed up. I'm no sold on inter animal type evolution or the footpath (sidewalk) all the way back to the seas and a single cell. I'm satisfied to leave that part in the middle to be unknown. I think that's healthy and don't like it wen people push it to be certain fact. I find it very celf centered to claim you know it all which I heard from both sides to some degree. I kind of believe we will never learn the whole truth. Not in our life time. We haven't even grasped the size of the universe or the reason why it even existsEdited by Porkncheese, : No reason given.

Your dating methods have no value and are wholly religious.Yes natural processes exist now and can be tested on earth now. Nothing to do with claiming such a nature existed long ago.Since most beliefs and most history includes spirits, that does make spirits a common denominator. Since science is only natural/physical, that renders science absolutely castrated when it comes to knowing anything about spirits.There is a lack of evidence from science that says no spirits existed. That renders them unable to partake in any discussion of the evidence of ancient records.You are in no position to tell us what human behavior is a result of.In a Christian majority area, they would believe Jesus created all things. They would believe in prayer. They would have some reverence for Scripture.There is always bias for one belief over others. Since much is unknown, there must be some beliefs involved and taught.The accurate portrayal of origin related so called sciences is that they are absolutely belief based.

Evos should face heavy fines for even using the word reality.

You see this is exactly why your crap can't be taught in schools. And since most beliefs are incompatible, most beliefs must be wrong. It's like being wrong is a common denominator. It's on a par with the evidence that there are no flying pigs.

Careful. Your authoritarian face is showing. You want to stamp out free speech? Do you want to put evos in concentration camps too?

Science works with natural processes, processes that can be observed, tested and explained by natural means. Throwing in a supernatural event involves a process that cannot be observed, tested and explained by natural means or it then becomes a natural event. Which is why so many scientists also have religious beliefs. Engineering is built on trial and error testing of hypothesis, and uses what works, usually with a factor of safety thrown in for good measure to cover most unanticipated situations. We've had this discussion before.If you studied biology I think you would find it just as demanding of being based on evidence, hypothesis and validation through testing. And yes, it also uses math not to confirm but to validate the results. Do you mean Archaeopteryx?Morphing is not an evolutionary process, rather each generation is different from the one before, and if we look at the continued effects of evolution over many generations, the accumulation of changes from generation to generation may become sufficient for individuals to develop combinations of traits that are observably different from the ancestral parent population. This is also sometimes called arbitrary speciation in that the place to draw the line between linearly evolved genealogical populations is subjective, and because the definition of species in general is tentative and sometimes arbitrary.If anagenesis was all that occurred, then all life would be one species, readily sharing DNA via horizontal transfer (asexual) and interbreeding (sexual) and various combinations. This is not the case, however, because there is a second process that results in multiple species and increases the diversity of life. The reduction or loss of interbreeding (gene flow, sharing of mutations) between the sub-populations results in different evolutionary responses within the separated sub-populations, each then responds independently to their different ecological challenges and opportunities, and this leads to divergence of hereditary traits between the subpopulations and the frequency of their distributions within the sub-populations.Over generations phyletic change occurs in these populations, the responses to different ecologies accumulate into differences between the hereditary traits available within each of the daughter populations, and when these differences have reached a critical level, such that interbreeding no longer occurs, then the formation of new species is deemed to have occurred. After this has occurred each daughter population microevolves independently of the other/s. These are often called speciation events because the development of species is not arbitrary in this process. If we looked at each branch linearly, while ignoring the sister population, they would show anagenesis (accumulation of evolutionary changes over many generations), and this shows that the same basic processes of evolution within breeding populations are involved in each branch. Curious then how evolution explains so well all the known fossils and all the known genetic information, all the way back to single cellular life.Enjoy

The laws of physics, the ToE, all the other mechanisms that make life and the universe operate the way it does.Enjoy

Not the topic of this thread, but I will note that you have not been able to show that any one of the dating methods used on Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 are wrong, nor have you explained the correlations. Continued assertions of your personal fantasy are not evidence. Likewise fact based history (as opposed to mythology) depends on verifiable facts, not fantasy or unevidenced spirits. That renders science -- and fact based history -- unable to partake in any discussion of fantasy/mythology as if it were fact. This has already been discussed. Still wrong.Enjoy

I was asked that same question by a christian. And my answer is the same.Something that is explained well dosen't neccessarily make it true

Agreed, but it is a good approximation. If it is explained well and can make predictions that can test it further, then we can see if those predictions come true. That increases our confidence that the explanation is a good approximation of reality.This is how all science operates: take evidence, make a hypothesis or theory to explain it, use the hypothesis/theory to make predictions, test the predictions, if true then make further predictions, if not true then modify then hypothesis/theory to include it or discard the hypothesis/theory and make a new one.It's a never ending process, and the goal is to refine our approximations of reality and increase our knowledge.For instance relativity is a better explanation than Newton's law of gravity, but is it "true" or just the best explanation we currently have. What is "true" and how would we know?Enjoy

I do not need to show correlations are right or wrong, only what they are based on...and that is belief. Your denial is useless.

I would like lies to be relegated to something other than mandatory beliefs imposed by evil people.